[Bylaws] Status?

[William Drake]

Hi

> On Apr 1, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Timothe Litt <litt at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Thanks for the update.  If previous status on this initiative showed up on the main members list, I missed it.  There have been issues where things in e-mail to the list are marked as spam.   As I get the list in digest mode, that means losing a day…
> 
> It would have been a good idea to post those events to this list, as the team signed up to work on the revisions. 

Fair enough. I guess I figured everyone who subscribed to this list is also subscribed to the main members list and that people understood it’s dormant, which is why we took it off http://www.ncuc.org/participate/working-teams/ <http://www.ncuc.org/participate/working-teams/> sometime ago and may be why yours is the first inquiry.

> It would also be a good idea to update the website's "a revision is expected" statement.

Glad to hear someone’s looking at the website :-)  Sure, we’ll do that.  Busy volunteers can overlook things.
> 
> Yes, when the bylaws are revised, they should include language concerning resignation.  The point of bylaws is to reduce the amount of knowledge that is carried around as folklore, which tends to prevent issues.  And so people know what they're signing up for.  This is consistent with other professional societies.  For example, Article 3 section 3 athttp://www.acm.org/about/constitution <http://www.acm.org/about/constitution>.  By the way, the ACM bylaws are at http://www.acm.org/about/bylaws <http://www.acm.org/about/bylaws>.  Although both documents are for an organization of greater complexity and scope, they might be worth reviewing when (if?) the effort is revived.

Sure, if when the path forward becomes with respect to the structural issues revising seems like the thing to do, this can certainly be in the pot.

Cheers

Bill
> 
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed. 
> On 01-Apr-15 04:48, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Timothe
>> 
>> As has been mentioned a number of times on the main members list and at Constituency Day meetings, this initiative has been on hold for a number of reasons.  Two efforts to get a team going stalled from lack of a facilitator and significant engagement.  I then reach out to several veterans including the folks who did the last version and said look why don’t we just take a week and do this, and the view was why bother when what we’d really like to do is see if we can’t move to the integrated SG model we advocated at the dawn of NCSG rather than doubling down on the dysfunctional constituency silo model.  So I started poking around with some board members and asking do you think it’s conceivable we could ever get the board to accept that, and got varying responses, some encouraging us to make a proposal and some saying that’d probably set off a more divisive holy war do you think it’s worth it.  Then the GNSO Review process was launched, in which context the structures of interest aggregation in the GNSO will be debated.  The initial draft from the consultant was full of agenda-driven nonsense, which we and others have pushed back on, and we’re now waiting to see what the revision will look like.  The consultant are to provide this in late April, and then the community review team will provide input, there’ll be a public comment period, etc.  By the BA meeting I would hope we will be able to have a more focused discussion, which together with the pending churn of the Board Structural Improvements Committee should provide clarity on the larger picture going forward.  If the upshot is that we are permanently wedded to a system that basically just wastes peoples’ time and distracts energies from policy work etc, then I would be happy to try once again to work with whomever is willing to spend some cycles to redo the Bylaws and align them with the current realities of the constituency’s role in the SG.  But we’re not there yet, and expending the time now while things are up  in the air and people are swamped with other items doesn’t seem so sensible.  I don’t believe the board is thinking about this or in a position to act anytime soon with all else that’s going on in parallel.
>> 
>> As to quitting: anyone can quit anytime.  It’s a volunteer association like any civil society network or professional association, not a penal colony.  If someone says drop me from the membership list, for whatever reason, we drop them, end of story.  This has never been an issue, but if and when we do a revision I suppose we could put that in writing if people think it’s helpful.
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Bill
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/bylaws/attachments/20150403/39ebb53f/attachment-0002.html>